2005 (4) TMI 385 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Whether Central Excise duty is payable on account of upward revision of price of levy sugar.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by M/s. U.P. State Sugar Corporation Ltd. to determine the liability of paying Central Excise duty due to the revision of levy sugar prices. The Appellant had cleared levy sugar based on prices fixed by the Government until the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered a revision in prices. The government issued notifications for the revised prices, leading to a show cause notice for demanding the differential duty. The Asstt. Commissioner, in the Order-in-Original, discharged the show cause notice acknowledging the amounts payable due to the Supreme Court order. However, the Range Suptd. later pressured for the payment, prompting the appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals), who rejected it citing the Asstt. Commissioner's decision. The Appellant argued that since the demand was dropped by the Asstt. Commissioner, there was no basis for filing an appeal against it, as the demand was in pursuance of the Supreme Court order.

The learned Advocate highlighted that the show cause notice lacked elements of suppression or misstatement as required under Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act. The Asstt. Commissioner noted that the duty demand period exceeded the statutory limit of 5 years and thus dropped the demand. The judgment did not mention any directive from the Supreme Court case regarding the duty payment by sugar manufacturers upon price revision. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, emphasizing that since the extended period was not applicable, there was no basis to direct the Appellants to pay the differential duty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the legal requirements under the Central Excise Act, emphasizing the lack of elements in the show cause notice and the absence of a directive from the Supreme Court regarding duty payment. The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory provisions and specific findings in determining the liability for differential duty, ultimately ruling in favor of the Appellant based on the legal analysis presented.